Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn each of two studies, six past or present Democratic presidential candidates (3 males, 3 females) were selected to construct groups of male and female candidates roughly matched in terms of prominence and ideological position. In Study 1, a conditional effect of candidate sex was found such that female candidates suffered deficits in voting intentions in participants at or above the 68th percentile in hostile sexism even when accounting for candidate familiarity. Simultaneously, sexism on its own predicted increased support for Donald Trump over the entire Democratic field. In Study 2, the conditional effect of candidate sex on voting intentions was positive (predicting greater support for women) for participants below the 26th percentile on sexism and negative for those above the 53rd percentile on sexism even when accounting for perceived electability, competence, and trustworthiness. The interaction also predicted perceived electability in an examination of conditional direct and indirect effects.

AbstractMoral appeals consistent with an individual's values affect their propensity to take action against inequality and its deleterious effects. Accordingly, moral foundations such as harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, or purity concerns could also affect perceptions of inequality and attributions regarding who is to blame for it. For instance, individuals high in loyalty concerns, who are typically more conservative, may show in‐group favoritism toward their own country by expressing less moral judgment of inequality in their own country versus other countries. Further, research germane to the belief in a just world has shown that conservatives are more likely to blame the poor for their poverty. The current research investigated the degree to which participants' moral reactions to a high degree of economic inequality are influenced by the country in which that inequality exists as well as the degree to which liberals (Democrats) versus conservatives (Republicans) blame inequality on different target groups. A mixed‐design experiment tested participants' degree of blame for equality across all targets (the poor, the rich, corporations, the government) for one of three randomly assigned countries (the United States, Australia, or China). Results were consistent with predictions related to moral concerns and ideological differences in attributions.

AbstractDecades of polling data and recent research have demonstrated the magnitude of anti-atheist prejudice in the United States and its relationship to perceptions of atheists as immoral and untrustworthy. Across three studies, I examine the malleability of bias against atheists in the context of election politics. Informational manipulations of an atheist candidate's stated values (Study 1) and popularity (Study 2) improve participants' perceptions of the morality and trustworthiness of and likelihood of voting for that atheist candidate, but religiously affiliated participants still prefer a similarly situated Christian candidate. Study 3 shows that participants are more likely to vote for an atheist when the opposing candidate was described as a theocrat. Implications of this research for ameliorating the under-representation of non-religious individuals in government are discussed.

The current research examined the ability of moral foundations to predict candidate choice in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election across three studies. Results indicated that endorsement of moral foundations predicted voting outcomes beyond that predicted by important demographic variables that are traditionally included in election forecasts and research. When moral foundations were collapsed into two variables (individualizing and binding foundations), increased endorsement of the individualizing foundations consistently predicted support for Barack Obama, and increased endorsement of the binding foundations consistently predicted support for Mitt Romney. The most reliable unique predictor of candidate choice among the five separate foundations was purity, which strongly motivated support for Mitt Romney. Additionally, increased endorsement of the fairness foundation uniquely predicted support for Barack Obama. The effects observed across the three studies demonstrate a direct relationship between moral foundations endorsements and candidate choice. Implications for those using moral appeals in their political influence strategies are discussed.

AbstractTwo studies explored the intersection between the COVID‐19 pandemic and the continuing fight for racial justice. The pandemic has exacerbated existing racial inequalities in the United States in terms of public health and economic outcomes, and it is well‐established that individuals higher in racial bias are less likely to support social safety net programs such as those meant to improve public health and reduce poverty. This is particularly true among individuals who perceive racial minorities as overbenefitting from safety net programs. Accordingly, the primary focus of the current studies was to examine whether framing the pandemic in terms of its disproportionate impact on minorities would reduce support for pandemic mitigation policies. In addition, we examine whether such effects were mediated through psychological mechanisms of moral outrage and perceptions of realistic and symbolic threat, and moderated by participants' racial bias. Participants' belief in a just world was included as a covariate given its established role in predicting many related social outcomes. Results suggested that racial framing interacts with participants' racial bias to affect policy support indirectly through multiple mechanisms. Broad implications regarding the relationship between racial bias and public support for a strong social safety net are discussed.